Re: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices

"Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)" <robert.g.cole.civ@mail.mil> Fri, 30 March 2012 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <robert.g.cole.civ@mail.mil>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B7421F8697 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CHLFPPaohKPz for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7434A21F84D6 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UCOLHP3P.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.155) by ucolhp2w.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:51:45 +0000
Received: from UCOLHP4J.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.8.78]) by UCOLHP3P.easf.csd.disa.mil ([131.64.100.155]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:51:45 +0000
From: "Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)" <robert.g.cole.civ@mail.mil>
To: "'bertietf@bwijnen.net'" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>, "'netconf@ietf.org'" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices
Thread-Index: AQHNDlHJQcaO5HCRVU+6KqDoAc5GmpaDDiGU
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:51:42 +0000
Message-ID: <B9468E58D6A0A84AAD66FE4E694BEABB49CA8C16@ucolhp4j.easf.csd.disa.mil>
In-Reply-To: <4F757326.8090002@bwijnen.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.64.77.13]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:08:49 -0700
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:51:54 -0000

Bert,

I am interested in a NETCONF-lite for constrained devises.  However, I worry about approaches that either baseline at either a) NETCONF- zero with vendors adding whatever features they think appropriate  or b) NETCONF with vendors subtracting whatever deviations they think appropriate.   I would, for simplicity sake, prefer the expertise in the WG to define a baseline NETCONF-lite feature set that I could easily explain to my acquisition and procurement folks.

Thanks,  Bob 

----- Original Message -----
From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 08:47 AM
To: netconf@ietf.org <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices

We would like to encourage the WG participants to
engage in a discussion on how to allow for
the use of NetConf for constrained devices.

See below the summary of our discussion at this weeks
session in IETF83.

Please express your opinions and pls describe
the pros and cons (as you see them) of each
possible approach.

It might also be good if someone (Andy?) could
summarize/describe how exactly one can in fact support
constrained devices with standard Netconf plus
a "deviations" approach. Maybe an example would be
the best way to demonstrate how that would be done.

Bert and Mehmet

On 3/30/12 10:32 AM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> NETCONF-Light:
>
> Juergen Schoenwaelder described the updated document, which defines only
> the hello message as mandatory. Andy Bierman questioned the strategy to
> provide a solution which is competing with the current NETCONF protocol
> standard, where deviations can be used to reduce the standard features
> for an implementation. The WG was in favor of the draft however the
> issue needs to be solved and needs a discussion on the maillist as one
> of the key contributors of the draft was not present. NETCONF-Light
> makes use of the TLS Pre-Shared Key (PSK) authentication introduced in
> the update of NETCONF over TLS.
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf